Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[Julia]

I'm a little confused about why Fillion would currently be in talks about signing on for next season if he signed a two-year extension at the end of last year.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Julia

[TWP]

I'm a little confused about why Fillion would currently be in talks about signing on for next season if he signed a two-year extension at the end of last year.

Nobody knows if he did or didn't, just as nobody knows anything else about this situation for certain. ;-). 

[Julia]

Nobody knows if he did or didn't, just as nobody knows anything else about this situation for certain. ;-).

 

Well, according to EW, which I think we can agree is slightly more credible than most gossip sites, Fillion signed on "for another year," which suggests that he signed for another year.

 

It also seems counterintuitive that with the fate of the show up in the air they wouldn't simply say he was contractually obligated to return if he actually was contractually obligated to return and not, as reported, negotiating a better deal with 400 jobs in the balance. As tone deaf as these folks appear to be, though, that probably doesn't mean much. 

 

 

[madmaverick]

I really wish people would get their information straight instead of blindly believing those who just throw incorrect things out there as fact.

 

From your mouth to fandom's (deaf) ears.  It's depressing to me how so many will callously present something as fact without doing any fact checking or clearly knowing it's inaccurate or not caring if it's accurate or not, not caring which questionable place it comes from.  It's depressing to me how many people seem to voraciously digest tabloids or anything that comes from anywhere on the internet, believe them straight up and have no qualms spreading toxic stuff from questionable sources without consideration.  That goes for all manner of "info", not just celebrity gossip.  What fandom needs is a fact checking site like politics, not that anyone can be bothered over something unimportant like this.  But defamation and cyber harassment matter.

 

Sure, but none of them worked with him for 8 years. That's a big difference.

 

 

And all the other cast who've also worked with him for 8 years have never shown they've had any issues with his on set behaviour or professionalism in any respect.  Quite the opposite.  I find it hard to believe that women like Susan, Toks, even Molly, would hold him in the esteem they do if he were such a terrible person, to any woman.  Jon and Seamus who've worked probably the most hours with Nathan after Stana have always been on warm, friendly terms with him as well as her.  If I['m going to go on anything, I'd rather go on the liking and respect of coworkers over a number of years rather than anything from questionable sources.

 

Heck, even little stuff like letting Fillion's team put out the most obvious cold, impersonal tweet about her leaving possible--something that in it's own way came off even worse than if he'd said nothing.

 

 

I really don't see how it'd been worse if he'd said nothing.  The statement was perfectly appropriate to me for the situation.  Respectful, complimentary, diplomatic and professional, just as Stana's was.  These kinds of statements are not the place for unrestrained, emotive outpourings in my opinion.  Especially when there are still cards in the balance for everyone involved.  

 

Well, everything anyone says at this point is their own personal opinion. No one who is close enough to know the truth will be totally unbiased. Two people can see the same thing and have completely different opinions about it.

 

Another refreshingly mature opinion that fandom needs to hear. 

 

Kave, I enjoyed your AU scenario but alas, I feel fans are far more creative with structure and storytelling than the actual writers have been for some time.

 

Not-A-Mused, nice handle.  It a-mused me.

 

Sandra Oh?  Where on earth did that come from?  Sounds unlikely to me.

Edited April 24, 2016 by madmaverick

[verdana]

Same could be said for Jennifer Gray, and hers coincided with a car accident, but her face lost it's character. If Stana had had great success before the surgery, people may have argued that she destroyed the character in her face too. But yes, the work was tasteful, understated and really made her beautiful.

Here's an interesting video from a very loving fan. NICE! https://youtu.be/Snm0QQBKuwA..

Thanks! That's a great video, is really shows you her physical transformation over the years, fans are so clever.  

 

I agree about Jennifer Gray and there's been a few actresses that spring to mind (Meg Ryan, Renee)  that have had too much work done and the very thing that made them unique and stand out amongst the herd is lost, actors are defined so much by their looks, their face really is their fortune - they mess too much with that at their peril.

[ChesterDome]

Of course he signed on for another year.  ABC does not release that press statement unless Castle is coming back.  Also, I think all of these #SaveStana fans or #NoBeckettNoCastle fans are a joke. The dirty little secret in the Castle Fandom is that the Stana fans are loud and small in number? These are not the fans that ABC cares about, because they are not the casual fans who left watching the show when the numbers started falling.  That is who ABC is going after in this move.  

[ChesterDome]

The question the Stana fans should be asking is why didn't Stana  do anything with her time on Castle to increase her star-power on the show. If she would have had more clout this move would have never occurred.   She has either poorly managed her career or her talent and appeal has limits and ABC knew that. 

[Julia]

Of course he signed on for another year.  ABC does not release that press statement unless Castle is coming back.  Also, I think all of these #SaveStana fans or #NoBeckettNoCastle fans are a joke. The dirty little secret in the Castle Fandom is that the Stana fans are loud and small in number? These are not the fans that ABC cares about, because they are not the casual fans who left watching the show when the numbers started falling.  That is who ABC is going after in this move.  

 

Is it clear to you that the renewal they're talking about in the article I linked was for season 8? There has been no confirmation that Fillion has signed for season 9. 

[TWP]

Thanks! That's a great video, is really shows you her physical transformation over the years, fans are so clever.  

 

I agree about Jennifer Gray and there's been a few actresses that spring to mind (Meg Ryan, Renee)  that have had too much work done and the very thing that made them unique and stand out amongst the herd is lost, actors are defined so much by their looks, their face really is their fortune - they mess too much with that at their peril.

 

Actors are like mini-corporations.  Changing their brand (their face) can have some pretty negative consequences.  I guess that's just a different version of what you said.

 

 

Well, according to EW, which I think we can agree is slightly more credible than most gossip sites, Fillion signed on "for another year," which suggests that he signed for another year.

 

It also seems counterintuitive that with the fate of the show up in the air they wouldn't simply say he was contractually obligated to return if he actually was contractually obligated to return and not, as reported, negotiating a better deal with 400 jobs in the balance. As tone deaf as these folks appear to be, though, that probably doesn't mean much.

EW could only say what the network told them.  Just because he signed for a year, didn't mean he didn't have option for a second year.  And nobody's really saying what these negotiations entail. 

 

In other words, we really don't know much if anything.  And just because something is in the press doesn't mean it's the whole story.

[ksb]

The statement was perfectly appropriate to me for the situation.  Respectful, complimentary, diplomatic and professional,

 

Obviously mileage varies, but it I had been on the receiving end of that message after having been half of whatever job I shared with the sender for eight years with this kind of ending of our work relationship, I'd feel disrespected and pissed off.

 

The message would work for me if it had been SK's choice and she had walked herself, but under these circumstances, to start the message with yourself and how you want the show to go on for years to come after your co-star has just been dismissed, is inappropriate and rude, IMO, escpecially from a guy like NF who seems to have a reputation of being rather warm, supportive and caring.

[madmaverick]

Obviously mileage varies, but it I had been on the receiving end of that message after having been half of whatever job I shared with the sender for eight years with this kind of ending of our work relationship, I'd feel disrespected and pissed off.

 

The message would work for me if it had been SK's choice and she had walked herself, but under these circumstances, to start the message with yourself and how you want the show to go on for years to come after your co-star has just been dismissed, is inappropriate and rude, IMO, escpecially from a guy like NF who seems to have a reputation of being rather warm, supportive and caring.

I would expect more privately but not publicly if the big boss had made a WTF decision but I, and the rest of my department, still had their own jobs to think about and knowing I can't reverse the decision.  

[break21]

Jon and Seamus seem to like both of them and are neutral.  Jon was in the military.  I can't imagine if NF was being an ass to Sk, how Jon wouldn't have put him in his place.  To me, NF and SK just had opposite personalities and it wore on them over time.  I also think her people should have never accused him of being a "bully"  That went way over the line.  That article hurt her more than helped her.   IMO, everyone needs to move on.

[Julia]

EW could only say what the network told them.  Just because he signed for a year, didn't mean he didn't have option for a second year.  And nobody's really saying what these negotiations entail. 

 

In other words, we really don't know much if anything.  And just because something is in the press doesn't mean it's the whole story.

OK, then. So all we know for absolutely certain sure is that unless the network explicitly lied to the press to make it look as if one of their stars is less on board with the franchise he anchors than he actually is, and he supported that lie for a year, Nathan Fillion signed a one-year contract at the end of last season.

[sugarrush]

Jon and Seamus seem to like both of them and are neutral.  Jon was in the military.  I can't imagine if NF was being an ass to Sk, how Jon wouldn't have put him in his place.  To me, NF and SK just had opposite personalities and it wore on them over time.  I also think her people should have never accused him of being a "bully"  That went way over the line.  That article hurt her more than helped her.   IMO, everyone needs to move on.

 

And how do we know "her people" accused him of anything? That's as much speculation as every other "insider" information, no?

[KaveDweller]

Of course he signed on for another year.  ABC does not release that press statement unless Castle is coming back.  Also, I think all of these #SaveStana fans or #NoBeckettNoCastle fans are a joke. The dirty little secret in the Castle Fandom is that the Stana fans are loud and small in number? These are not the fans that ABC cares about, because they are not the casual fans who left watching the show when the numbers started falling.  That is who ABC is going after in this move.

I agree the campaigns to save her are kind of silly and won't work, but I think ABC may be overlooking the fact that there's a difference between her fan base and people who watch for Castle/Beckett together. Obviously ABC thinks they can still make money off the show, but I think it's awful they are willing to do such a disservice to the fans who have been watching for 8 years. If the only way they could come back profitable was to totally reboot the show, I don't get why it makes sense to them to bother. A cheaper new pilot seems better.

The question the Stana fans should be asking is why didn't Stana  do anything with her time on Castle to increase her star-power on the show. If she would have had more clout this move would have never occurred.   She has either poorly managed her career or her talent and appeal has limits and ABC knew that.

Do you mean through other projects so that she was more else known off the show? I'm not sure how that would have stopped this whole mes, but I do agree she should have been picking better side projects during the breaks, if she really wanted to escalate her fame/career. Maybe she just really likes small indie projects she's done. Or maybe she doesn't want more attention because she's been scared off by stalkers fans. Or maybe she wants both and hasn't pulled it off. We have no way of knowing. I hope she lands somewhere else that makes her happy though.

I do also think her team is doing her a disservice if they are the ones leaking stories about how Nathan is a bully and she would cry in her dressing room, because it makes her look like too much of a victim. I don't mind if they leaked the news of ABC not asking her back, because I think it was crappy of ABC to not even offer her the chance (and I do believe that part of the story or ABC would have said otherwise in their statement). Even if she was thinking of leaving on her own or would have asked for too much money/perks I think they owed her a conversation.

[CarltonUrDoorman]

The question the Stana fans should be asking is why didn't Stana  do anything with her time on Castle to increase her star-power on the show. If she would have had more clout this move would have never occurred.   She has either poorly managed her career or her talent and appeal has limits and ABC knew that

As a woman, she had 2 options to increase her power. A sex change, or sleep with Nathan or ABC brass.

[FlickerToAFlame]

I'm appalled that 6 days later, still no statement from the showrunners. If they are already fired they could still give a robot statement like Nathan did. Same if they're currently fighting to keep their jobs. Disgraceful.

Whether Nathan is innocent or at fault, I won't be convinced this wasn't a sexist decision by the network unless I hear something otherwise that's believable. If she was fired for being too demanding that's SEXIST. If she was fired for conflicting for with equally conflicting male costar, that's SEXIST.

Six days later and I'm still fuming at ABC.

Edited April 24, 2016 by FlickerToAFlame

[madmaverick]

As a woman, she had 2 options to increase her power. A sex change, or sleep with Nathan or ABC brass.

 

As a woman and a feminist, I'm offended by this remark.  Disservice to powerful women everywhere. 

[Annec]

 

Since I want to share the blame around (in no particular order) as best I can here goes:

 

• I blame Hawley and Winter for their tone deaf shitty storytelling and lack of respect for the characters MilMar created. I will never forgive them for the separation fiasco and the awful ongoing Locksat borefest. 
• I blame Luke for Castle's shitty grossly unflattering wardrobe, the guy doesn't deserve to be in a job. I could do better.
• I blame some elements of the fanbase for their actions at times on social media which gave the rest of us a bad name and end up with many posters unfairly being labelled as "haters" or "trolls" for daring to have critical opinions on what the show has become and worse keep voicing them.
• I blame MilMar for starting the rot with their "respect the process", taking Beckett "down a peg" (argh!), Rogan and the Hamptons wedding that should have been, in hindsight 6.23 was ultimately the moment the show derailed.  
• I blame the network for their utter greed and obvious desperation, presumably if they hadn't agreed to Katic and Fillion's demands they would have walked which given how bad S8 has been and watching the fall out now of bitterness and recriminations - I fervently wish they had. 

I love your list. This season has been horrible, I haven't watched more episodes than I have, and this is someone who has the first 7seasons on dvd. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm thankful for Hawley because he's made it very easy to walk away from Castle, something I never thought I'd say before this season.

I don't know what happens if there is a season 9 but Hayley and Alexis are unwatchable and annoying. IMHO, NF needs a strong actor to work off (look at his scenes with Susan) and these gals just don't fit the bill. Unless they do something really unexpected and make Alexis and Hayley a romantic couple they have nothing that makes them worth watching.

[WendyCR72]

Look no matter all the BTS and none of us knows the whole truth. I am asking all of us to come together to #SaveCaskett this love story has been the central theme of the show from the beginning and to not see then get their 'Always' would be horrible. So please follow this link and see how you can help. Also pass it on to as many places as you can. https://airbefore.tumblr.com/post/143299919524/savecaskett-campaignThank You

 

With all due respect, those on the show have said it is not within their power to get SK back; ABC has also issued a statement as has SK. And, if I recall, isn't filming already in the can for S8?

 

Good luck to you sincerely, but I do believe the fat lady has sung here.

[ksb]

To me, NF and SK just had opposite personalities and it wore on them over time.

 

I agree that this could be part of the problem. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that two rather different but intelligent and thoughtful adults couldn't manage to act professionally and responsibly enough to not ruin their work relationship so seriously that it ultimately led to the demise of the show as we knew it.

 

Since they got along so well  for the first couple of years, something major must have happened that resulted in this irreparable breakdown that has been written all over my screen since mid season 5.

Edited April 24, 2016 by ksb

[FlickerToAFlame]

As a woman and a feminist, I'm offended by this remark. Disservice to powerful women everywhere.

I'm more offended that this could likely be the situation than that someone pointed it out.

[TWP]

OK, then. So all we know for absolutely certain sure is that unless the network explicitly lied to the press to make it look as if one of their stars is less on board with the franchise he anchors than he actually is, and he supported that lie for a year, Nathan Fillion signed a one-year contract at the end of last season.

YES!  Looking through the keyhole that every press release is, that's what we know, that's all we know. We can't assume anything else.  He could potentially have a 10 year development deal and they just need to iron out the details of what next year holds, or he could be scheduled to be picked up by the recycling crew on May 20 if negotiations for 13 more episodes fall through. 

[TWP]

I'm more offended that this could likely be the situation than that someone pointed it out.

 

I cringe a little when Stana tells the story about how she asked Nathan to cut her shirt shorter while she was there for the Castle audition.  Pretty transparent, ugh, but then maybe that's what you have to do to rise above the competition.

[Beth64]

 

Sandra Oh?  Where on earth did that come from?  Sounds unlikely to me.

I agree. Someone told me this but provided no support. I don't really believe it.

[tessaray]

I don't know what happens if there is a season 9 but Hayley and Alexis are unwatchable and annoying. IMHO, NF needs a strong actor to work off (look at his scenes with Susan) and these gals just don't fit the bill. Unless they do something really unexpected and make Alexis and Hayley a romantic couple they have nothing that makes them worth watching.

 

I recently watched the GDS episode, since I figured it would give me a feel for a Castle-only show (only having seen the first 2 episodes of S8).  My takeaway was that A) it wasn't as bad as I expected (as others have said, the last couple of seasons have been more Caskett-awkward than anything else) and B) Alexis and Hayley have a really weird vibe and it made me wonder if that was why the show seemed to be making Alexis look matronly.  Because the age difference is kind of squicky and throws off the otherwise interesting spark that seems to be there.  (Goes to show you can't predict onscreen chemistry...) 

 

ETA:  I can't really see myself watching the next season, no matter how it turns out but I am curious how they wrap up this season. Or if the furor will have even died down by then. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by tessaray

[Julia]

YES!  Looking through the keyhole that every press release is, that's what we know, that's all we know. We can't assume anything else.  He could potentially have a 10 year development deal and they just need to iron out the details of what next year holds, or he could be scheduled to be picked up by the recycling crew on May 20 if negotiations for 13 more episodes fall through.

Absolutely. Hopefully when the details are revealed they'll also address the real possibility that both Katic and Fillion were eaten after Season 2 by the aliens from Men in Black, who are now acting in their skins ;)

[TWP]

Sandra Oh:  Well, we all have our non-starters and anyone who was a regular on Grey's Anatomy during the time I faithfully watched is my non-starter.

 

No Shonda shows or cast for me.  I will admit I like Chyler Leigh, but she was pretty new there at the time I dumped the show.  And she's working on a different network, so no chance of any Shonda influence.

 

 

Absolutely. Hopefully when the details are revealed they'll also address the real possibility that both Katic and Fillion were eaten after Season 2 by the aliens from Men in Black, who are now acting in their skins ;)

 

Now there's a twist that we could all embrace.  At minimum it could explain many mysteries.

Edited April 24, 2016 by TWP

[oberon55]

I'm not taking sides & don't really care beyond the fact that they have managed to ruin a show that I liked. I do think internal politics can ruin anything whenever more than one person is involved (especially people with Hollywood egos) so anything is possible. I only have one question. If she really was that miserable & mistreated why in the hell didn't she just leave after her initial contract was up. Surely she could afford it. Why re-sign & subject herself to more of the same bullshit. If the stuff on this forum is anywhere near true why didn't she just tell them all to kiss her ass last year?

[rspad]

Perhaps she felt the show would only go one last season and she'd stick it out for love of the show/character/fans and/or a good 'ole paycheck? Who the heck knows. All speculation. All I do know is the reality we're now stuck with.

[Mabinogia]

I'm probably the only person who is excited about this. I might be able to watch the show again. I had to give it up long ago because I came to strongly dislike Beckett and couldn't stand them as a couple. I liked Castle, the mysteries, his mom and Alexis, and Ryan and Esposito. I do miss them.

[ChesterDome]

As a woman, she had 2 options to increase her power. A sex change, or sleep with Nathan or ABC brass.

What??  That's not her only options.  She could just cry victim, then lie and call Nathan a bully. Wait!  She did that already.

[WendyCR72]

Nerves are raw - including mine - but there is nothing legit anywhere that says Katic called Fillion a bully. That was...less than reputable sources.

 

So let's quit with unproven accusations, please.

[KaveDweller]

I agree that this could be part of the problem. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that two rather different but intelligent and thoughtful adults couldn't manage to act professionally and responsibly enough to not ruin their work relationship so seriously that it ultimately led to the demise of the show as we knew it.

 

Since they got along so well  for the first couple of years, something major must have happened that resulted in this irreparable breakdown that has been written all over my screen since mid season 5.

 

Yes, I agree. They appear so close in the early seasons. Then in the season 6 DVD commentary, Nathan does commentary on two episodes and doesn't say a word about Stana in either. In both episodes, he makes a point of naming and saying something nice about every single cast member, several guest stars, and even one of the extras. But he clearly avoids talking about her, even when everyone else is. He only mentions Beckett once over both episodes. That is super weird, and not a normal reaction to a simple personality clash. It's also not a normal way to try and get fans to stop shipping them in real life. Something must have really went down with them, and we'll probably never know what it was.

 

I'm not saying I believe any of the gossip about Nathan, but there was at least one story where someone talked about him mistreating Stana before all this came out. It isn't new in response to her leaving. Wherever it's coming from.

 

It's all just so depressing that this is what the show has become.

Edited April 24, 2016 by KaveDweller

[verdana]

KaveDweller. "Super weird" is the perfect description of Stana and Nathan's relationship over the last two or three years. I'll always be intrigued what the hell went down with them. 

[FlickerToAFlame]

KaveDweller. "Super weird" is the perfect description of Stana and Nathan's relationship over the last two or three years. I'll always be intrigued what the hell went down with them.

Yeah, and the weirdest part is the pretending the other doesn't exist. Even actors who do hate each other, you'd think could fake it. There was never even an attempt to hide the awkwardness.

[BellyLaughter]

I don't expect them to be friends but in the interest of PR I'm surprised it was allowed to be carried on for so long....people aren't stupid.

[KaveDweller]

Yeah, and the weirdest part is the pretending the other doesn't exist. Even actors who do hate each other, you'd think could fake it. There was never even an attempt to hide the awkwardness.

 

I'm one of the people who think they do still manage to have chemistry on screen, which makes it seem even weirder. If they can do it on camera, why not for five additional minutes to talk to a reporter? Or why not say one thing about her during the commentary. Someone else could write the lines for them and he'd just read them like it was another scene. Just for PR's sake. You'd think ABC could insist on it. Stana always seemed to at least acknowledge Nathan in interviews, but since she hasn't done any in ages, I have no idea if she'd do that now.  If she's smart she'll do a really classy interview after the finale about how much she loved the part and how she holds nothing against ABC/Nathan. But I'm not sure how good her PR people are.

[Thak]

 

I'm one of the people who think they do still manage to have chemistry on screen, which makes it seem even weirder. If they can do it on camera, why not for five additional minutes to talk to a reporter? Or why not say one thing about her during the commentary. Someone else could write the lines for them and he'd just read them like it was another scene. Just for PR's sake. You'd think ABC could insist on it. Stana always seemed to at least acknowledge Nathan in interviews, but since she hasn't done any in ages, I have no idea if she'd do that now.  If she's smart she'll do a really classy interview after the finale about how much she loved the part and how she holds nothing against ABC/Nathan. But I'm not sure how good her PR people are.

 

She also acknowledged him through twitter over the years, only to be ignored.  She seemed to back off after season 6 it seemed to me, although she did send him that cute tweet for his birthday last year. 

[Kromm]

From your mouth to fandom's (deaf) ears.  It's depressing to me how so many will callously present something as fact without doing any fact checking or clearly knowing it's inaccurate or not caring if it's accurate or not, not caring which questionable place it comes from.  It's depressing to me how many people seem to voraciously digest tabloids or anything that comes from anywhere on the internet, believe them straight up and have no qualms spreading toxic stuff from questionable sources without consideration.  That goes for all manner of "info", not just celebrity gossip.  What fandom needs is a fact checking site like politics, not that anyone can be bothered over something unimportant like this.  But defamation and cyber harassment matter.

Okay, I get it. But sometimes that "prove it before you even talk about it" angle is even worse.

 

The example that always stays with me is The Good Wife situation. There were years, and I literally mean years, of people in forums like this, then bloggers, then eventually even journalists and columnists, noting that mysteriously the two stars never shared a scene. And yet there was always a strong (often angry) thread of denial about that (that it meant absolutely nothing/was a coincidence). Then it was announced that Archie Panjabi was going to be leaving the show, and more people dug... including more journalists--and so there were even more mainstream articles about tension on that set, and actual more concrete rumors that Julianna Marguiles refused to even be in the same room as Panjabi.  Most of the reasons speculated on for such a declaration were totally unsubstantial rumors, but the one thing that was clear was that nobody could place them in the same place--even at Press Events and Awards shows--for years. The show producers, and thus also a strong contingent of fans online, continued to deny it. Then as Panjabi's last appearance got closer, that kind of shifted when the producers played it for press attention about how the two would share one memorable last scene before the character left. Then when the episode aired, a lot of people realized that the two actresses being in the same place was actually digital manipulation--literally a fancy split screen trick requiring a very complex, no doubt expensive setup with not just those two, but other actors staying on discrete sides of two different sets digitally glued together. So the memorable "final scene" with the two of them was literally a lie--they were clearly in two different places reading their lines alone and it was all glued together. Then, as if by magic, several media sources (some of the ones that had also derided the idea that the two had avoided being in scenes together) that had always seemed friendly to the show and it's producers printed snide articles about "conspiracy theories"... until someone actually did a frame by frame analysis of the scene showing the split.  Then the producers (and a whole contingent of people on boards and tweets) who'd latched onto the "conspiracy theory" thing backpeddled, and the producers came up with some lame statements about scheduling conflicts.... which Archie Panjabi herself (who'd otherwise refused to publicly comment on ANY of this) refuted by saying she'd been in town the time that the producers were saying there'd been a conflict. And then, almost as if by magic, a lot of attacks on Panjabi started happening, a lot of floated suggestions that she'd been difficult to work with, etc. when there'd never been any real suggestion of that before. Heck, over years of cast interviews, the feeling always seemed to be that the other actors gushed about Panjabi and talked in a very measured, neutral way about Julianna Marguiles. But that didn't stop a lot of "we don't know what really happened!" arguments in topics like this, in articles that went on about conspiracy theories, etc. Even though there was a lot of indirect evidence. And also logic--the "who had the power/who benefited" kind of logic at the very least. 

 

My point--although it took a mountain of a statement/rant above to tell it--is that the "we don't know"/"prove it first" approach is seemingly sometimes actively used to just shut down speculation totally. The way things panned out with The Good Wife showed a determined pattern of the showrunners, and Marguiles own P.R. people, reaching through press, likely anonymous online accounts, and momentum to get their client out of hot water... and to this very day there are still people saying "we don't really know what happened". No.. we don't. But logic, looking at how people in the industry talk about and react with the parties involved, the reactions or non-reactions of showrunners and network execs can suggest things. Heck, even the fact that online people DO legitimately arrange themselves into "shippers" or conversely into "teams" who align behind one actor or character vs. another plays into a pattern I've noticed of people simply using those alignments existence to try and argue that it's all prejudice, or fan ranting, or hot air.

 

It is provable that Fillion is the heavy here?  No. But it's logical to think it's likely. That's a fair speculation, and not just people being unfair... as long as people keep an open mind if other information comes along.  But the important thing is the P.R. effect. Whether it's true or not that this came from Fillion, it's entirely predictable that people would assume it did, and getting upset that people are thinking that way seems a bit naive. Heck, I'd argue that it's so inevitable that the show/network even daring to talk about what may or may not happen next season was inherently a bad idea. 

 

I won't say the truth always comes out, because in an age of NDAs, it doesn't always. But it might. And until that happens (or even if it never does) people ARE going to talk... speculate...theorize and champion. It's human nature.

[BellyLaughter]

ABC Network.....How Not To Do PR.

[TWP]

BTW, that split screen from The Good Wife scene, probably not very expensive to do, probably chroma key.  I can do convincing chroma key (green screen effects) just me, and my little computer and a copy of my favorite video editing software. Shoot one side of the scene with the background, shoot the other side against a green screen.  Use software to combine the two.   It is not complicated at all. 

 

However, the idea that grownups couldn't shoot one last scene together, knowing that they'd never have to lay eyes on each other again, is sad.

 

It's not logical to think Fillion is the heavy.  We have no FACTS in that regard.  He has no control over what the network does.  It is logical to believe that he said he wasn't going to sign again with Katic, then the network chose him over her for their own reasons.  That's not being the heavy if you're actually willing to walk away.  It's someone wanting to choose what to do with their own life. 

 

The truth is people love to gossip.  Gossip seems to be the fun and sport of it all and that's why the speculation takes place. What difference did it make to viewers whether TGW characters got along?  The only reason to care is idle curiosity.  We don't even have the sexism charge to fuel the fire.

[TWP]

I'm probably the only person who is excited about this. I might be able to watch the show again. I had to give it up long ago because I came to strongly dislike Beckett and couldn't stand them as a couple. I liked Castle, the mysteries, his mom and Alexis, and Ryan and Esposito. I do miss them.

 

Not excited, but sort of glad (while hoping Stana gets an excellent opportunity).  Toward the end of Season 8, as a couple I found them marginally better than earlier in Season 8 when they were broken up and sniffing shirts.  Big sad cringe.  Otherwise, their off-screen dislike of each other came through to me larger than life and was so distracting that I fast forwarded through most of their scenes and then could enjoy the rest of the show.  I thought the show was getting okay (with fast forwarding) when this announcement was made. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by TWP

[Kromm]

BTW, that split screen from The Good Wife scene, probably not very expensive to do, probably chroma key.  I can do convincing chroma key (green screen effects) just me, and my little computer and a copy of my favorite video editing software. Shoot one side of the scene with the background, shoot the other side against a green screen.  Use software to combine the two.   It is not complicated at all. 

 

However, the idea that grownups couldn't shoot one last scene together, knowing that they'd never have to lay eyes on each other again, is sad.

 

It's not logical to think Fillion is the heavy.  We have no FACTS in that regard.  He has no control over what the network does.  It is logical to believe that he said he wasn't going to sign again with Katic, then the network chose him over her for their own reasons.  That's not being the heavy if you're actually willing to walk away.  It's someone wanting to choose what to do with their own life. 

 

The truth is people love to gossip.  Gossip seems to be the fun and sport of it all and that's why the speculation takes place. What difference did it make to viewers whether TGW characters got along?  The only reason to care is idle curiosity.  We don't even have the sexism charge to fuel the fire.

Chroma Key isn't inherently that expensive, but that was a real live set, not just a greenscreen. They had to take the time, trouble and expense to block out all of the other actors in the scene (because it wasn't just a static background). Heck, they likely had to measure out to the inch the hand placement of each of the main actresses, since they even bothered to try and fool people by having their hands almost touch.  It was surely a complicated process--especially since they DID (by implication at least) lie about it for a while.

 

I don't completely like the "idea that grownups couldn't shoot one last scene together, knowing that they'd never have to lay eyes on each other again, is sad" bit though, because my point in large part was that a LOT of sneaky stuff was clearly going on to try and keep Marguiles' name clear. That statement makes it sound like Punjabi ever had a choice--that she was likely equally as culpable and needed to suck it up too. But her own statement--one of the few she broke ranks to say I mean--is that the producers never even TRIED to get her and Marguiles in the same room for the scene. That there WAS no scheduling conflict. So the whole "lets be fair and leave an opening to blame either" approach never rank as true or fair to me, because just because we can't PROVE that Marguiles wasn't the heavy there didn't mean that common sense wasn't telling us for (literally years of following the story) that she was. We can reserve room for doubt, IMO, but carefully metering out every statement about the thing like it's just rumormongering and net hate isn't fair either. It's actively how CBS and the KIngs tried to kill the story, in fact.

 

I see this Castle thing as heavily mirroring the Good Wife thing, except it never went as far on set (that the two did indeed share scenes even until the end). Again, logic says that something happened to break that status quo. Is it fair to speculate that the one with more power, Fillion, cause the status change? I think it is. It doesn't mean he outright said "fire her". I accept the logic that he may have instead threatened to leave himself and ABC made the decision, but that's splitting hairs a bit to potentially put it equally on both of them.

 

Besides my my point remains.... people are going to be people and speculate--sometimes without evidence. ABC bungled handling that end of it by not getting out in front of this story in a better way. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Kromm

[Thak]

 

He has no control over what the network does.  It is logical to believe that he said he wasn't going to sign again with Katic, then the network chose him over her for their own reasons.  That's not being the heavy if you're actually willing to walk away.  It's someone wanting to choose what to do with their own life.

 

When you know you're the "brand" and the show won't carry on without you, then you're sitting pretty and you know it, then you use that to get what you want if you're so inclined.  The "brand" was all the talk last year when Nathan signed first and people got upset that they hadn't signed Stana yet.  They talked about securing the "brand" first (Nathan), then dealing with the other contracts.   I remember that John Lopes (@The_JML) guy speaking to that with upset fans last year.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Thak

[WendyCR72]

Spec is human nature, sure. But that spec invariably - as I have seen - leads to offended folks stating their spec as fact, and that is where the shit starts. Fillion may be the brand. But - and to go way back here, Valerie Harper was the brand of her self-titled sitcom. And she was fired, and the show survived with new casting.

 

Is it rare? Hell, yes. And I know times are different from the '80s with other options/the 'net and all. But the point is, the "brand" does not necessarily preclude a lead getting the heave ho. We have no basis in fact that Fillion is the villain of this piece. How do we know it isn't Katic? (And I doubt that, too. But I bring her up to make a point; I'm sure that those who may suggest that alternative would see her fans dismiss it much as others dismiss Fillion when the fact is WE DON'T KNOW. And we likely never will.)

 

Spec is easier when the truth comes out. But if/when it doesn't, if no new info surfaces, then what? Mud sling forever to ensure some hollow victory on either side of the fanbase coin?

 

Seems pointless in the end.

[CheshireCat]

ABC might consider Fillion the "brand" but I'd argue that he is and I think the outrage and the many "Castle can't go on without Beckett" and the variations of that are proof that ABC got it wrong. The show may be named after Fillion's character but it wasn't created solely for his character but for the love story and I think that makes them both the "brand".

[Thak]

The importance of the Castle "brand" was spoken about last year, so it makes it a reasonable argument.  Also, if someone else can speak about what's "logical" to them, then others can do the same, because neither side of the debate knows if what they say is fact.

 

And just to add, I deliberately made sure I said in my last post, "IF you're so inclined", when responding to the other poster's "logic".

[Kromm]

Spec is human nature, sure. But that spec invariably - as I have seen - leads to offended folks stating their spec as fact, and that is where the shit starts. Fillion may be the brand. But - and to go way back here, Valerie Harper was the brand of her self-titled sitcom. And she was fired, and the show survived with new casting.

Is it rare? Hell, yes. And I know times are different from the '80s with other options/the 'net and all. But the point is, the "brand" does not necessarily preclude a lead getting the heave ho.

It's an interesting example, but as you say times have changed. Also, to be blunt, the "Valerie" brand was never near as valuable as the "Castle" one. The precise ratings are a bit lost to time (at least from where we sit--I'm sure real industry people could get them), but I believe it was at best a marginal hit while Valerie Harper was still there. And more importantly, it was on a network that at the time was packed with well rated shows that could take over if needed. Plus the producers, Miller-Boyett, were so successful they could pretty much ride out whatever they had to do. Also, in that case, the decision actually came from Lorimar Television, and they were certainly big enough to take the bullet if the replacement of Harper failed. And remember that Harper was actually the one holding out for money--she literally didn't show up on set after having initially agreed to her contract renewal, so it's not like they had as much of a choice. Harper wasn't playing ball at all.

 

To contrast it to something more modern... Chuck Lorre, Charlie Sheen and Two and A Half Men. A show that was easier to rebrand, because it wasn't called something like "Charlie Harper", but which was arguably far more successful than "Valerie" ever was. But like Lorimar/Miller-Boyett, Chuck Lorre had the resources to actually fire his star. 

 

Now take this back to Castle. Unlike Valerie (which was only 2 seasons in), it's entrenched 8 seasons deep with the same premise and branding. Due to the changing nature of TV ratings, it's not really much of a blockbuster (and it was never as hot as lets say Two and a Half Men), but if you're going to squeeze any more blood out of the stone, then a reboot is definitely a hard road to follow. Likely you need the star... so there is branding protection needed.

 

Another comparison. "The Closer" transitioning to "Major Crimes". That's on cable, so already it's different, but why did that apparently work out? Well it's because Kyra Sedgewick parted with the show on good terms. If she'd just up and left at the end of one season and they resumed next season with a different star (and in that case, show name?) I bet it wouldn't have been as smoothly. Instead they spent about a season and a half prepping Mary McDonnell as a known presence on the older version of the show, and giving Kyra Sedgwick's character all kinds of exit storylines.  Branding protected.

 

I guess this is all the long way around saying that I think in this particular case, Fillion was indeed the "brand" to the extent that he has power. The producer doesn't have more power than him, like in the Valerie or even the Two and a Half Men examples (in the later, Sheen actually DID have more power than Lorre for years but finally pushed things too far). The brand wasn't marginal, like Valerie, or easily replaceable if the fix had failed (again like Valerie).  

 

Frankly the way this IS playing out, even with Fillion on board, is more like the extra season of "Scrubs" without most of the cast of that show. The branding was indirect anyway, and the two main stars actually DID participate, but nobody wanted a show with the same name but totally changed otherwise.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Kromm

[westwingfan]

I'm probably the only person who is excited about this. I might be able to watch the show again. I had to give it up long ago because I came to strongly dislike Beckett and couldn't stand them as a couple. I liked Castle, the mysteries, his mom and Alexis, and Ryan and Esposito. I do miss them.

Many of us had the seeds of doubt sown with FBOW (the taking down a peg or two), then when we had the P.I.arc occur in S7 the suspicions increased, and so when Beckett's character was little more than a peripheral figure for many S8 episodes, and even left out of a couple altogether, it really started to look like an orchestrated attempt to reduce her popularity, coupled with the story that ABC had been the ones that wanted Castle's P.I. office revamped at some expense (no problems with the budget then) and the introduction of a new character to supplant Beckett in Alexis' life. When you add in the pre season promotion of Castle's new job and the family business the writing has been on the wall for some tiime. I agree that Beckett's character has lost it's appeal this season to a great extent, but whereas I stopped watching after 8x17 because I realised that this was never again going to be the show that I signed up for, it seems you have accepted what has happened more readily. The creator always emphasised that this was about Castle AND Beckett, that was what the show's success was built on, and that is why it's hard to see how a S9 could be any sort of success if they are relying on the current audience to still tune in. Richard Castle isn't the golden goose, Castle and Beckett working together are.